jsn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.726 OF 2014 IN Digitally SUIT NO.353 OF 2014 signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA SHANKAR Satvik Rajiv Samani & Anr. ...Applicants /

SHANKAR NIJASURE NIJASURE Date: Plaintiffs

2026.04.06

15:45:43 +0530 Versus Shardaben Prabhudas Samani & Anr. ...Defendants WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1526 OF 2015 ----------

Mr. Archit Jaykar with Ms. Hetal Jobanputra and Ms. Dhwani Parekh i/b. Jayakar & Partners for the Applicants / Plaintiffs.

Mr. Shanay Shah with Mr. Hamza Lakhani i/b. Suraj Shukla for Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. S.L. Shah i/b. Shal Legal for Defendant Nos.3 and 7.

Mr. Nausher Kohli with Mr. Aditya Raut, Mr. Shyamdhar Upadhyay i/b. Desai Desai Carrimjee & Mulla for Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.

Mr. Divyang Shukla /b. L.J. Law for Defendant No.9.

----------

CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.

Reserved on : 23RD FEBRUARY 2026 Pronounced on : 6TH APRIL, 2026.

O R D E R:-

1. These Notices of Motion were heard together in view of similar relief having been sought therein, namely, for an Order of injunction restraining the Defendants from selling, transferring, parting with possession and / or creating any third party right, title and interest in respect of the properties mentioned in the Particulars of Claim annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit ‘C’. The items at Sr. Nos.1 to 6 in the Plaint include the Harileela Property which is the asset/property of Defendant No.7 – Panache Securities Private Ltd. (referred to as “Panache”). Further, in Notice of Motion 726 of 2014, the Plaintiffs have sought for appointment of the Court Receiver to take possession of the said properties from whomsoever found in possession and to order and direct the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 or any one of them to be put in physical possession of the Office at New Harileela House, Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (referred to as “Harileela Property”) as agent of the Court Receiver.

2. The Plaintiff No.1 is the son of Shri Rajiv Prabhudas Samani (“the deceased”). The deceased had purchased the Sagarkunj Flat and was shown in the Memorandum of Association (“MoA”) and Articles of Association (“AoA”) having 50% shareholding and the Plaintiff No.2 (ex-wife of the deceased) held the balance 50%

shareholding in Panache.

3. The Defendant No.1 was the mother of the deceased and has since the filing of the Suit has herself expired. Defendant No.1A has been brought in place of Defendant No.1 as daughter of Defendant No.1 and is also original Defendant No.2 in the above Suit. The Defendant No.3 had been made Director of Panache and whose appointment as a Director has been impugned in the above Suit. The Defendant No.4 is the purchaser of the Harileela Property of Panache and Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are Directors of Defendant No.4. Defendant No.7 is Panache. Defendant No.8 – Fullerton India Pvt. Ltd. is the mortgagee of Defendant No.4 in respect of the Harileela Property. Defendant No.9 is the daughter of the deceased/ step sister of Plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.10 is the Sagar Kunj CHS Ltd. - Society.

4. The facts are briefly set out as under:-

i. Rajiv Samani (the deceased) purchased Flat No.48 Sagar Kunj CHSL, 9th Floor, 78, Napeansea Road, Mumbai 400 006 (hereinafter referred as “Sagar Kunj Flat”).

ii. The marriage between Plaintiff No.2 and the deceased took place on 26th December, 1992. They had a son named Satvik Samani (Plaintiff No.1) on 18th December, 1993. The Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of Panache were executed on 10th October, 1994 and which shows the deceased as having 50% shareholding and Plaintiff No.2 having balance 50% shareholding. The deceased and Plaintiff No.2 were subscribers to the MoA.

iii. Panache was incorporated by Certificate of Incorporation on 22nd December, 1994 and Form No.32 of Panache on the said date showed appointment of the deceased and Plaintiff No.2 as its Directors.

iv. The Plaintiff No.2 and the deceased began residing separately in 1995.

v. Pana